The majority not being in poverty does not make the minority in poverty go away.

This is still a good thing for workers. DUCY?

You don't think there's a difference between working for $7.25 an hour and working for $15 an hour? I think the workers would have a different opinion.

Yes! I do want to. A couple of points.

1. I think key a question you should ask yourself (you don't need to answer in thread) is, why wouldn't you want people to have good wages? Personally, I would much rather Wal Mart pay their workers a decent wage, say like Costco, instead of having the Walton kids chop up $150BB six ways.

2. The market is not some infallible deity we must always bow down to. The market for labor is just not very efficient. Yes there are jobs like nursing and software developer where demand is sky high and drives up wages. But we were in full employment in a booming economy, and wages still didn't go up.

https://www.businessinsider.com/supp...y%20broken.%22

But the character Scrooge McDuck DID hoard cash and WAS greedy.

He literally worships money. Also he's named...you know....SCROOGE.

I'm pretty far from a communist. At the end of the day I'll just support whoever wants people to have healthcare, to raise the floor, and not **** up the planet.

Also, you know that's satire right? Just checking.

I'm no fan of anarchy, as I'm sure you know if you've read my posts ITT. Not sure if this was directed at anyone in particular.

Of Course.



It was off topic, but on topic for the thread. No, it was not directed at anyone.

And is also made up.

Most of low wage workers are not looking to make the most money possible, but are looking to supplement their income.



What you don't get is, the Walton kids will still chop up 150BB six ways (as in percentage of wealth walmart generates). That 150BB is based on how many products walmart sells, not how much profit they generate. It does not matter how much the labor cost, Walmart will operate on a 3-4% margin. The economic reality is the market will adapt to the new wage. If they can't sell x product at a 3-4% margin due to labor cost, they won't sell it, unless people are willing to pay a higher price (which for most products consumers will pay more, because they are making more, but you will lose economic activity and sales for those products that were previously priced as high as demand will allow, and already at the lowest margin). This results in people making more, but cost of living increasing, and the share of wealth not changing at all (or economic inequality). Also, less economic activity means less jobs, less growth, less construction, less investment in innovation, etc etc.






I've seen other studies saying differently, it's likely we have to wait a few years before we get any type of consensus.

I don't think so, becasue the black market then becomes appealing (economic incentive to cheat and there will be people willing to take jobs under the table who are willing to work for less and not have to pay taxes) both for products and labor, which acts a competitive and destructive force (as in more wealth will have to be destroyed to enforce the legitimate markets).

I'm not sure why you think a race to the bottom engineered by rich capitalists to get the cheapest price (which is always well under the total value produced) is the objective measure of the value of labor, while setting a hard floor at the minimum livable income as the cost of doing business is some perversion. Capitalists won't accept prices below the costs of producing goods, and neither should laborers accept wages under those of living. They should be able to ask for more than that, a bigger share of the value they produce, but a hard floor at the cost of living should be the expectation of what capitalists pay to the workers that they want alive.

The article you cited said it was indeterminate at worst for the benefit to workers.

Gee, I wonder why people want to immigrate here....our standard of living is entirely based on our wages and entitlements, and our standard of living is among the best in the world across all socioeconomic classes.

Right, for the workers who make that wage, but they aren't the entire labor market, i.e. the ones who will work for less, etc etc.

Workers who were working for less started making more, and those who needed the same total wages got more free time of their own volition, and also workers who were making slightly more than $15 also were empowered to ask for more.

It's mainly because we have pretty good immigration laws. Our standard of living isn't anything special by OECD standards, especially at the bottom.

IMO, that's like a millionaire feeling bad they are not a billionaire.

The number is higher, but they are not making more (cost of living goes up). Is the goal really to create more free time for upper middle class white kids?

The cost of certain goods and services may go up, but not necessarily by as much as wages did, and it's also not clear that rent is one of those things.

Uh, no, it's not like that.

Cost of living is going up anyways, and a lot of it is driven by things like rent increases which have outpaced increases in income.

I believe the idea of wage push inflation makes sense on paper, but is largely discredited by the data at this point. You are welcome to look into it on your own.

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/1...-wage-on-adas/

Just a question how does the minimum wage for retail affect the minimum wage for workers in hospitality (restaurants, bars, etc) where many of those workers would have tips to supplement their wage? It is just a case of too bad for bar or restaurant owners to have to cough up the extra cash that a set minimum wage would bring and meanwhile less workers are hired as a result?

How many countries have more illegal immigrants than the US?

The increase in wages will be paid by consumers/workers (or lack thereof). Walmart, Amazon, or any high-volume, low-margin retailer/restaurant will not change their business plan, becasue the products they sell have already removed most of the fat. Again, these companies make cash based on how much they sell, not the amount they sell it for. They are already operating on low margins.

A company like Apple might...but they have a small footprint in regards to retail workers.


The jury is still out on rent.

What I'm talking about is not inflation. Purchasing power. You are essentially changing the numerical value of the dollar, but the purchasing power is staying the same. Inflation is reducing the purchasing power of the dollar, and I'm not arguing that.

Here is a bigger picture take, based on the CBO estimates. The CBO argues the inflation point, obviously.